(April 14, 2016 at 9:09 pm)Evie Wrote:bennyboy Wrote:I'd put it this way: three people are in a candy aisle. Will they all choose the same candy? No. Each will choose according to his nature and his condition at the time[...]
Exactly, and one's nature is unchangeable. What you do is because of who you are and you can't change who you are. Exactly.
Yep, but this is not the real debate in academic philosophy. The debate is whether or not we should be considered to have free will if we can get to do what we will to do. In other words, why shouldn't we count this as having free will if such a conception of free will is more meaningful and closer in meaning to the words "free will" than that other nonsensical conception that doesn't signify free will but rather some logically incoherent characteristic or whatever that we can't make any sense of?
